fix: build on haiku by adding missing import

[SteveLauC]

Fix the build on Haiku by adding a missing import

error[E0433]: failed to resolve: use of undeclared crate or module `slice`
   --> /localhome/somers/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-freebsd/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/std/src/sys/pal/unix/thread.rs:272:24
    |
272 |             let name = slice::from_raw_parts(info.name.as_ptr() as *const u8, info.name.len());
    |                        ^^^^^ use of undeclared crate or module `slice`
    |
help: consider importing one of these items
    |
1   + use alloc::slice;
    |
1   + use core::slice;
    |
1   + use crate::slice;

Closes #123343

[rustbot]

r? @Amanieu

rustbot has assigned @Amanieu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[Noratrieb]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit bb43990 has been approved by Nilstrieb

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[SteveLauC]

Hi @Nilstrieb, do I need to squash my commits?

[Noratrieb]

you can if you want to and I can re-approve in that case, but I didn't want to bother you with it because I don't think it's that important here

[SteveLauC]

but I didn't want to bother you with it because I don't think it's that important here

Ok, then I will leave them as-it

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit bb43990 with merge 36b6f9b...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Nilstrieb
Pushing 36b6f9b to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (36b6f9b): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-3.1%, -3.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	3.4%	[3.4%, 3.4%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.4%, -2.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.1%, -2.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-2.4%, 3.4%]	5

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.7%	[-1.7%, -1.7%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 667.636s -> 667.623s (-0.00%)
Artifact size: 315.59 MiB -> 315.65 MiB (0.02%)